"Artificial intelligence is not bad for newsrooms. It's the future of them," Quinn wrote

You know, what with the poor quality of modern American journalism, leading to an overall decline in readership, I'd have thought you'd be more concerned with improving quality rather than reducing costs by reducing quality.

We want journalism we can trust, an honest source of truth, a "plain dealer" if you will, not a mix of single source sentences extended into five paragraphs of slop with hallucinations mixed in.

Journalism is and always has been a necessary component for a stable, democratic, informed society. The fact you fuckers won't do your job is why we're where we are.
 

I honestly don't think anyone's left at Slashdot who knows how the code works and could add a filter, so you're safe.

The problem isn't that, people complaining rarely seems to do anything.

The problem is that until Trump our government was beholden to lobbyists and small scale corruption, and now it's beholden to large scale corruption and with-me-or-against-me loyalty tests. In neither of these models is "Doing the right thing and ensuring the public's best interests are taken care of" a thing, and we've gone from a semi-corrupt-but-at-least-obviously-extreme-examples-were-quashed environment to something completely out of control. All corporations need to do is kiss Trump's ass, donate to one of his fraudulent enterprises, and wait for approval to come in.

If we ever get our government back, first priority needs to be making it act in the public interest, and making sure voters have to take it more seriously than they've done in the past.

We've devolved into a banana republic. It's awful.

> Stop talking about "average commute". An average commute means *NOTHING* to a car buyer. What matters to them is the single longest trip they think they will ever have to make with that car

No, not really. Drivers generally expect that after 2 hours of driving they'll stop for a break of at least 5-10 minutes. That's why they don't refuse to buy cars that cannot have a gas tank covering 600 miles of driving.

All most drivers want is the ability to "refill" regularly on any long trip they're likely to do. And most don't imagine that their longer journeys will spend significantly off of Interstates, and won't be between developed "cities" (cities in quotes because America has very few real cities.) So the vast, vast, majority of them will not have a problem with an EV that has a range of 150+ miles.

So what I'm hearing is that an EV with a range over 200 miles would be perfect for 99% of Americans?

> The thing is, a high speed charger in the middle of nowhere is going to have to be more expensive than gas to pay off considering they will have to run the infrastructure y to get that much power there.

The infrastructure is there already.

How do you think a gas station in the middle of nowhere runs the gas pumps? You think that gasoline just spontaneously goes into the cars? How do you think those gas stations have lighting at night or power modern cash registers and credit card machines and refrigerators.

Or are you under the impression that the power company just rolls a really long extension cable to these places and that if they run more than a convenience-station-full of fridges at once the wire will catch fire?

(Plus, you know, local power generation is a thing, a thing becoming increasingly viable with advances in solar and wind energy.)

> "Can be recycled" != is actually recycled.

If there's a problem with sourcing it, you can bet it will be recycled.

(Plus, honestly, I believe Lithium already is being recycled as a natural part of disposing of batteries safely.)

The concept of a government that's actually useful and is on the people's side is something alien to most Americans, even when the US government is run by Democrats. It's a sign of how bad politics have been on this side of the country since before Reagan, but it's also why politics are so bad in the US. I genuinely think that if America had, for example, a national health system maintained by the government, people would be more invested in elections, and politicians keener to prove their competence.

Of course they're not saying that TWX said, TWX was speculating on why Collabora would be so anti- LOO in reality, not reading their press release.

And I must admit, I think TWX is probably right. We've seen a large number of groups that create office-friendly open source projects whose long term aim is to close the system and sell licenses. Zimbra is one example, which doesn't even have an offering suitable for small groups now, let alone an open source offering.

I know there'll be much gnashing of teeth if Collabora goes down that route, given its popularity in privacy circles right now which intersect heavily with FOSS groups, but I suspect that's the path they were hoping to go down.

LO starting a new tree doesn't mean much - there's nothing stopping LO from merging Collabora's changes back in if they see them as good enough. Perhaps, on top of everything else, it's possible the LibreOffice people do not think Collabora's fork uses the right approach to implementing this?

According to Lucas, a partial yes. The Emperor and his throne were apparently inspired by the deep loathing Lucas had for Nixon. Whether that's still relevant is whether you believe that Lucas would consider the current Republican party to be even more fascist than they were in the mid-1970s. I say fascist, because the other aspect of the empire was the Nazi imagery, particularly the uniforms (which despite being a Hollywood shortcut is not, actually, a defining feature of fascism and not why normal people are anti-fascist.)

1. The "Department of War" given in the summary is actually referring to the Department of Defense. The term "Department of War" is a nickname given by the Trump administration, it has no legal status.

2. One way Musk dealt with the fact his thinned down Twitter development group was no longer able to maintain a scalable system was to ban people who don't have accounts with X from viewing threads. This reduces the load on X's servers slightly. Fortunately, third parties have filled the gap. You can read the thread here.

You're welcome.

I think there may be a reason, and it goes to the heart of why everyone hates Sam Altman: he's a fucking con man who'll make outrageous claims about what LLMs are capable far more than any honest purveyor would do.

The argument with Anthropic started, supposedly, not when Anthropic refused to do something, but when they were asked if their technology was capable of shooting down incoming Nuclear missiles, and Anthropic's CEO said no, that was way beyond the capabilities of the technology.

The stuff about Anthropic saying they wanted humans in any chain that leads to deaths came later, but this was the pivotal point at which the DoD started to question Anthropic about what their technology can do.

I can see Altman being the kind of used car salesman who'd claim that OpenAI is, indeed, capable of shooting down incoming nuclear missiles.

After he would have said that, anything else would have been icing on the cake. It doesn't matter any more that Anthropic was banned because they were "woke" or anything else, they had a different answer to the question that lead to the Hegseth concluding that Anthropic was "woke" in the first place.

Dude, what the fuck are you talking about? The only side in American politics angling to make the country a religious dictatorship is the one that thinks Trump was sent by God.

I swear you right wing fuckers are so out of touch with reality you literally imagine things now and attribute them to imaginary enemies because it's so much easier than realizing the liberal and left wing sides of the political spectrum might be almost always correct about everything.
 

So... after one war where the US was a participant rather than a unilateralist or semi-unilateralist, we saw two countries improved.

Wars really are not a great way to spread democracy, even if that were the aim which is highly improbable given Trump's position on democracy.

He wants Anthropic to produce products that he wants that they're capable of making that they refuse to do on moral AND practical grounds (apparently this started when someone asked if Anthropic could produce a system capable of shooting down an incoming nuclear weapon, but escalated when Anthropic's CEO made it clear he wanted humans in the chain making life and death decisions), not to "respect a ToS". The right thing under the circumstances isn't to have a hissy fit and ban the supplier from everything, but go to a different supplier for the products the DoD wants.

The DoD and Trump administration are being batshit crazy here:

1. It is not illegal or unconstitutional or "against a ToS" for someone to refuse to supply a product they consider immoral.
2. It is profoundly stupid not to have a human decision maker in a decision making chain where a device may do things that cause the deaths of human beings.

(Note: this is not me defending an AI company. This is me being disgusted at the Trump admin's rationale. Anthropic are still ultimately a bunch of frauds creating misery by promoting a technology incapable of doing what it's promoted as doing. A pox on both their houses.)